State Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, released a statement earlier this month withdrawing his support for Straus because a then-unnamed member of the House had allegedly called him and told him people who didn't support the speaker would be redistricted out of a seat in the upcoming legislative session. Today, officials revealed that the unnamed member was state Rep. Larry Phillips. R-Sherman, who just happens to be on the ethics ...

Comment Policy

The Texas Tribune is pleased to provide the opportunity for you to share
your observations about this story. We encourage lively debate on the issues
of the day, but we ask that you refrain from using profanity or other
offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting
advertising, or wandering away from the topic at hand. To comment, you must
be a registered user of the Tribune, and your user name will be displayed.
Thanks for taking time to offer your thoughts.

Comments (9)

November 23, 2010 @ 3:46 p.m.

James Henson

Hook us up with some video of Hughes and Phillips?

November 23, 2010 @ 5:03 p.m.

Tim T

can anyone confirm...Hughes asked to be placed under oath and testified as such, yet Phillips did NOT ask to be nor did the ETHICS committee place him under oath? That little fact may be the difference maker.

November 23, 2010 @ 8:18 p.m.

Alice Crenshaw

Oh, Tim. Phillips would have happily gone under oath. Hughes just did that to make a show of it. It's assumed in this type of thing you're telling the truth. This was nothing more than a very public accusation against a Representative that's never even been accused of anything like this in an effort to help out Hughes' friend, Ken Paxton. All Hughes has done is destroy what little credibility he had.

If I were in the Legislature, I certainly wouldn't have a conversation with Hughes in anything other than a written format.

November 23, 2010 @ 11:46 p.m.

Michael B Openshaw

Phillips was there when Hughes specifically requested to be placed under oath; the fact that he did NOT follow suit spoke volumes about his veracity, as was the fact that over 90% of the time on this was spent behind closed doors spoke to the Chair's concern for open government (and the $42K he got from Straus had NOTHING to do with it; yeah, right!).

I've got experience going back 30 years in Austin and I can assure you implied threats and actual instances of punitive redistricting have and do occur. Speaking openly of them is taboo, but this level of disgusting thuggery on Speakers races has been going on for a long time- and needs to STOP! The new mandate for systematic change and the ability to speak openly about the race makes this now doable. The process must change.

November 24, 2010 @ 10:06 a.m.

Tim T

Wow, Alice, so defensive against an objective observation. I guess I know who works for who in here. lol. Listen I barely know either of them personally, but I do know some other legislators pretty well...and Paxton is not one of them either. I can just put some things together. First, my legislative friends rank Hughes at the VERY bottom on the scale of legislators who have tendency to lie while Phillips seems to be placed on the very TOP of the list of those who act the way he has allegedely acted. Not hard for ANY of them to believe. Also, if he would have "happily gone under oath" as you say, do you know how easy that is to do?..."May I please be placed under oath?" I think he was probably thinking about that law license he would have to forfeit had he lied under oath. Either that or he was way too consumed with reading straight from a piece of paper that his two lawyers wrote for him that was less a defense and more a strange pro-Strauss ra-ra speech. What did that have to do with anything anyway? Anyway, outside observer, but I agree with michael above, perhaps a bit taboo for Hughes to come out with the conversation, but what can he do now except say what happened? Phillips can thank Strauss for setting up the circus he did rather than just have the two hash it out behind closed doors after the statement. So, Michael Openshaw for Speaker? :)

November 24, 2010 @ 10:38 a.m.

Michael B Openshaw

Tim T: LOL. My son is under strict instructions that if I ever show up in Austin as a politician he is to have me committed to the insane asylum or just put me out of my misery for the good of mankind. I did my bit in elected office (Denton County GOP Chair) but reject the path it normally set to become a State Rep (lke Jim Horn, Ben Campbell and Mary Denny). My should is worth more to me than that.

I certainly do NOT fault Hughes for coming out on this; I salute his political courage and this happily grassroots grunt will be glad to help him in any way I can. Phillips is the one who I would gather made the SERIOUS mistake in judgment.

For those who might question whose telling the truth in this, ask yourself what Hughes possibly had to gain in coming out on this if it were NOT true? To reveal the political inner workings of Austin does you a significant amount of damage in a LOT of camps, as there are people of ALL political stripes who like and count on the backroom deals. Hughes is no fool and knows this. Only a decision of principle would drive a man to do himself such political harm that will certainly outweigh any good in Austin; and that makes Hughes a hero in my book. It is long past time this kind of stuff stop; the Tea Parties, the court ruling opening the process and Hughes revelation are the FIRST opportunity to actually change the process that needs changing.

Other commenters have knowledge of the specific members and back room workings of the state legislature. I have nothing against any of the individuals mentioned. I am disgusted by the "ethics" of the house and senate back room deals and the party manipulations of the members.